TAX POLITIXhttp://taxpolitix.com
The Brass Tax of PoliticsSat, 28 Mar 2015 11:36:22 +0000en-UShourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.1Speech Police: “Dear Politicians, Stop Calling People ‘Taxpayers'”http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Alanjoelny/~3/TFQsiFyleb0/
http://taxpolitix.com/speech-police-dear-politicians-stop-calling-people-taxpayers/#respondSat, 28 Mar 2015 10:49:43 +0000http://taxpolitix.com/?p=7345The New Republic recently went through an internal overhaul in order to stay relevant, and the recent drivel that was written shows that it wasn’t for the better. Last week, there was an article written called, “”Dear Politicians, Stop Calling People ‘Taxpayers'”, in which the author proposes to eliminate the word “taxpayer” from everyday lexicon because it favors those who pay taxes. You can’t make this stuff up.

The article, which was released coincidentally during the same week as the House Republican FY2016 budget, accuses said budget of being “an ideological document meant to advance a particular set of beliefs about how government should function, and toward what end”. Her evidence of such ideology is that, “in the 43-page budget, the word “taxpayer” and its permutations appear 24 times, as often as the word “people.”

Imagine that. How dare a budget — which is a plan that fleshes out income and expenditures over a period of time — should use the word taxpayer, seeing that the main source of revenue for that budget is taxes, which is paid by…wait for it…taxpayers.

She further analyzes this phenomenon by suggesting, “It’s worthwhile to compare these usages, because the terms are, in a sense, rival ideas. While “people” designates the broadest possible public as the subject of a political project, “taxpayer” advances a considerably narrower vision — and that’s why we should eliminate it from political rhetoric and punditry.”

In other words, it is a “narrow” vision to consider a budget at all from the perspective of taxpayer, from which the government derives most of its revenue. Oh, and the government is now a “political project.”

It gets better.

The author goes on to point out that Democrats also use the word “taxpayer” in their budget: “Democrats often refer to “taxpayers,” too. At 150 pages, the White House budget proposal for 2016 uses the term 26 times”. However, it’s different when Democrats use it! Really it is.

Let’s compare the two. With regard to the use of taxpayer in the House Republican budget, the author writes,

“The House budget is full of examples of seemingly straightforward deployments of the term which are, upon closer inspection, clearly furthering a particular ideology. “There are too many scenarios these days in which Washington forgets that its power is derived from the ‘consent of the governed,’” the plan reads in one instance of the term’s use. “It forgets that its financial resources come from hard-working American taxpayers who wake up every day, go to work, actively grow our economy and create real opportunity.” In other words, Americans’ taxes are parallel with taxpayers’ consent, suggesting that expenditures that do not correspond to an individual’s will are some kind of affront.”

And more,

“The report goes on to argue that “food stamps, public housing assistance, and development grants are judged not on whether they achieve improved health and economic outcomes for the recipients or build a stronger community, but on the size of their budgets. It is time these programs focus on core functions and responsibilities, not just on financial resources. In so doing this budget respects hard-working taxpayers who want to ensure their tax dollars are spent wisely.”

Put simply, taxpayers should get what they pay for when it comes to welfare programs, and not be overcharged. But, as the Republican authors of this budget know well, the beneficiaries of welfare programs tend to receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes, because they are in most cases low-income. The “taxpayers” this passage has in mind, therefore, don’t seem to be the recipients of these welfare programs, but rather those who imagine that they personally fund them. By this logic, the public is divided neatly into makers and takers, to borrow the parlance of last election’s Republicans.”

So here we have it. The use of the word “taxpayers” is bad coming from Republicans because the Republican budget takes into consideration those who personally fund government programs with their taxes. Unfortunately for the author, taxpayers don’t “imagine that they personally fund them”, but actually, truly do fund them with the taxes that they pay. This is problematic to the author, because, she writes, “the “taxpayers” this passage has in mind, therefore, don’t seem to be the recipients of these welfare programs”. (Probably not, largely because, “the beneficiaries of welfare programs tend to receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes”.)

Presumably, that is mean. It is mean to consider at all the source of revenue when writing a budget, even though budgets (are supposed to) have finite revenue limits — which, in this case of a federal budget, are the taxes collected by the taxpayer. But it’s worse than mean. It’s ideological. And narrow.

Contrast this with her defense of the Democrat’s use of the word “taxpayer” in their budget plan (she references the White House one). Taxpayer is used

“26 times, predictably invoking it when referring to cuts and reductions in services. The Budget includes initiatives to improve the service we provide to the American public; to leverage the Federal Government’s buying power to bring more value and efficiency to how we use taxpayer dollars…,” President Barack Obama writes in his introductory message. “The Budget includes proposals to consolidate and reorganize Government agencies to make them leaner and more efficient, and it increases the use of evidence and evaluation to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely on programs that work.”

So, because the Democrats talk about the “taxpayer” with regard to, and in reference to, “services” and “Government agencies”, that is good. Because Government is good. And “services” and “Government agencies” surely include everyone.

What’s really interesting is that both budgets have similar language, but one is bad (Republican) and one is good (Democrat). See here:

Republicans wrote, “this budget respects hard-working taxpayers who want to ensure their tax dollars are spent wisely”, while the President wrote, “The Budget includes proposals… to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely on programs that work” (emphasis added).

So, because the President focused his words on describing Government programs (that work), ergo, it must be true and good. And not ideological or narrow. This is reinforced by the author’s assertion further in the article that “public revenue is just that: a pool of public money to be used for the good of the public, not 300 million pools of private money each to be used to serve private individuals’ interests.” The greater good. Everyone. People. So, how dare any budget consider at all those “taxpayers” who fund it it with (taxpayer) revenue!

The final paragraph of this article, however, is the creme de la creme:

“Whereas “taxpayers” is strewn throughout political documents, “people” is associated with populist and revolutionary movements, and not for nothing. Power to the people, the evergreen revolutionary slogan trumpeted by popular fronts around the world, has a ring that power to the taxpayers does not precisely because it demands an inclusive view of public goods. The same could be said about the first line of the U.S. Constitution: “We the Taxpayers” would have been an odd construction for a nation born from a revolt against British taxation. So let’s leave “taxpayer” to the IRS and remove it from everyday speech. With every thoughtless repetition of the word, we’re carrying political water.” (emphasis original).

This is what passes for meaningful discourse these days. “Taxpayer” is now another word of class warfare, because it suggests there is a divide of “makers and takers”. The Left is content with taking our money to fund (endlessly) whatever programs it deems good — and now it is content to take our speech too.

Eric Holder recently announced his plan to move forward with prosecuting “campaign-finance “coordination” between candidates and outside groups.” This is ridiculous.

Holder has the time to do this, but yet he hasn’t even begun to compose a report on the IRS — which everyone now knows is full of very serious breaches of impropriety.

How can he find the time to develop the politically charged concept of coordination (with no real evidence); investigations are based merely on supposition. In contrast, we have actual facts and actions with regard to the IRS fiasco — which was also politically charged — and Holder has done nothing so far.

Even the WSJ recognizes the farce that this “coordination” campaign is, pointing out that “the federal government can subpoena your documents, email, computers and bank records in a political fishing expedition conducted by the FBI.”

And more: “A coordination investigation can be started on almost any pretext. All you need is an allegation that someone talked to someone they should not have. Once the investigation makes it over that low evidentiary hurdle, the feds can comb through every shred of personal and group communications to find illegal contact.”

Why is the same diligence not being applied to the substantiated, documented IRS abuses? Where is the Department of Justice report on this egregious overreach by another federal department?

Unfortunately, we already know the answer.

2015/2016 is shaping up to be a particularly nasty election cycle. You can read the scathing WSJ opinion on the matter of “coordination” here:

So, President Obama’s FY2016 budget suffered a major defeat (again) on Tuesday night, when the Senate voted against it 98-1. This would not be the first time Obama’s budgets have been readily rejected.

Already, Republicans and Democrats had their own interpretation of what that vote meant.

“Democrats objected, saying the plan wasn’t really Mr. Obama’s, but Republicans said it had all the same numbers as the president’s blueprint, and so the vote counts as a rejection of his fiscal year 2016 plan.

“This is the president’s proposed budget,” said Sen. John Cornyn, the Texas Republican who forced the vote by offering the amendment, complete with the tax hikes, spending increases and deficit targets Mr. Obama had projected in the document he sent to Congress last month….

Sen. Bernard Sanders, Vermont independent and Democrats’ point man on the budget, said the plan Mr. Cornyn offered didn’t include a minimum wage increase or some of Mr. Obama’s other policy prescriptions, so it wasn’t a legitimate representation of his budget. ‘It is not what President Obama presented to the American people,’ Mr. Sanders said.”

Remember, this was the budget that Obama pushed forth touting “middle class economics”, both on paper and during his State of the Union. This was the $4 Trillion budget, with $2 Trillion in tax hikes over the next decade. This was the budget that used fuzzy math to boast a higher deficit reduction than it could actually deliver.

The budget rejection was reminiscent of most of the past budgets that Obama has offered. His FY2013 budget was defeated 0-99 in the Senate and 0-414 in the House; in FY2012 it was 97-0. No one wants to put their names to it.

Obama submitted his FY2014 budget late by two months, in April of this year. By that time, the House had already created and voted on a budget, as did the Senate (first time for the Senate in a few years). Incidentially, Obama’s budgets were late 4 out of 5 budget cycles through FY2014, (breaking the law, mind you), with 2010 being the only year he submitted it on time.

At least we can say that opposition to Obama’s budgets through the years have been both bicameral and bipartisan. Yes, we can!

MR. PRESIDENT: No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely, and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offence, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves, and the House? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these war-like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask, gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free² if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending²if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable²and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace²but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

]]>http://taxpolitix.com/240-years-ago-patrick-henrys-speech/feed/1http://taxpolitix.com/240-years-ago-patrick-henrys-speech/A Very, Merry (Un)birthday to Obamacarehttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Alanjoelny/~3/TLg0IdUSla8/
http://taxpolitix.com/a-very-merry-unbirthday-to-obamacare/#respondMon, 23 Mar 2015 23:35:14 +0000http://taxpolitix.com/?p=7325March 23, 2010: Obamacare was signed into law by President Obama. How have we fared since then? Sally Pipes over at NYDailyNews gives a good overview of how Obamacare has failed to live up to its expectations.

“Obamacare turns five years old today. But there’s little to celebrate.

When he signed his signature piece of legislation into law, President Obama guaranteed lower health-care costs, universal coverage and higher-quality care. Americans wouldn’t have to change their doctors if they didn’t want to. Five years later, the health law has failed to fulfill those grandiose promises.

“In the Obama administration,” candidate Obama boasted in 2008, “we’ll lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family in a year.”

Not quite. A recent report from the National Bureau of Economic Research examined the non-group marketplace, where families and individuals who don’t get coverage through work shop for insurance. The report concluded that 2014 premiums were 24.4% higher than they would have been without Obamacare.

On Obamacare’s third birthday, the White House reassured Americans the law would protect vulnerable patient populations from increases in drug prices.

“Preventing them from being charged more because of a pre-existing condition or getting fewer benefits like mental health services or prescription drugs,” was a key purpose of the law, explained the White House.

Instead, drug costs for these patients have skyrocketed. The majority of health plans on the exchanges have shifted costs for expensive medications onto patients.

In 2015, more than 40% of all “silver” exchange plans — the most commonly purchased — are charging patients 30% or more of the total cost of their specialty drugs. Only 27% of silver plans did so last year.

Part of the problem is that Obamacare has quashed competition.

The president promised in 2013 that “this law means more choice, more competition, lower costs for millions of Americans.” But that hasn’t turned out to be true. According to the Heritage Foundation, the number of insurers selling to individual consumers in the exchanges this year is 21.5% less than the number on the market in 2013 — the year before the law took effect.

The Government Accountability Office reports that insurers have left the market in droves. In 2013, 1,232 carriers offered insurance coverage in the individual market. By 2015, that number had shrunk to 310.

A man looks over the Affordable Care Act (commonly known as Obamacare) signup page on the HealthCare.gov website in New York in this October 2, 2013 photo illustration.
As competition in the exchanges declines, so does quality — just like Obama inadvertently predicted in 2013, when he said: “without competition, the price of insurance goes up and the quality goes down.”

Consumers who purchase insurance on the law’s exchanges have fewer options than they had pre-Obamacare. McKinsey & Co. noted that roughly two-thirds of the hospital networks available on the exchanges were either “narrow” or “ultra-narrow.” That means that these insurance plans refuse to partner with at least 30% of the area’s hospitals. Other plans exclude more than 70%.

Patients may also have fewer doctors to pick from. More than 60% of doctors plan to retire earlier than anticipated — by 2016 or sooner, according to Deloitte. The Physicians Foundation reported in the fall that nearly half of the 20,000 doctors who responded to their survey — especially those with more experience — considered Obamacare’s reforms a failure.

The Obama administration claims the health-care law has been a success because millions have gained insurance coverage. But that coverage is worthless if they can’t find a doctor or hospital who will see them.

Further, as many as 89% of the Americans who signed up for Obamacare when the exchanges opened in 2013 already had insurance. In other words, many exchange enrollees simply switched from one plan to another.

And the law is set to cover far fewer people than initially promised. In March 2011, the Congressional Budget Office forecast that 34 million uninsured would gain insurance thanks to Obamacare by 2021. But this month, the agency revised that estimate to 25 million obtaining coverage by 2025.

Covering those people isn’t cheap. This month, the CBO estimated the law’s 10-year cost will reach $1.2 trillion — a far cry from the President’s initial promise of $940 billion.

So much for President Obama’s five-year-old declaration that he would not sign a plan that “adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future.”

Time and again, Obama has been proven wrong about what his health law would accomplish. Quality hasn’t improved, and costs continue to grow out of control. So far at least, that’s Obamacare’s legacy.”

]]>http://taxpolitix.com/a-very-merry-unbirthday-to-obamacare/feed/0http://taxpolitix.com/a-very-merry-unbirthday-to-obamacare/Incorrect 1095A Forms Are Finally Being Corrected — Nearly 2 Months Laterhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Alanjoelny/~3/aERBksYih28/
http://taxpolitix.com/incorrect-1095a-forms-are-finally-being-corrected/#respondSun, 22 Mar 2015 05:35:21 +0000http://taxpolitix.com/?p=7315There have been many reports about incorrect 1095A forms being sent out. The 1095A (the Health Insurance Marketplace Statement), is the form that the government sends you if you enrolled in an Obamacare plan last year, and is your proof of insurance. This form is necessary in order to fill out your 8562 worksheet on your 2014 tax form. For more about the 1095A, go here and here .

Considering that only 6.7 million people enrolled in and paid for an Obamacare plan in 2014 (after adjusting for counting dental plans), it’s pretty terrible that the Administration sent out about 820,000 incorrect 1095A forms; that’s about 12-13% of all enrollees.

The original forms were supposed to arrive in everyone’s mailbox by January 31st (like W-2s and 1099s), but then the Administration pushed that arrival date into the first week of February. Now we are in the 3rd week of March. All the people who have incorrect 1095As have been delayed in filing their taxes.

“Federal officials said on a Friday press call that about 740,000 corrected forms have been mailed out or can be downloaded from the HealthCare.gov site. About 80,000 corrected forms will be mailed and available online next week, they said.

Consumers who already filed their tax returns using the incorrect forms provided though state or federal exchanges won’t be required to file amended forms, and the Internal Revenue Service won’t assess additional taxes, said Mark Mazur, the Treasury Department’s assistant secretary for tax policy.

The Obama administration may re-evaluate filing extensions because of the incorrect forms, but at this time, April 15 is the end of tax-filing season based on statute, officials said.”

So all these people have had to wait an additional 7-8 weeks for a correct 1095A form that they are required by the federal government to have in order to correctly calculate their “Premium Tax Form” (Form 8562) on their 2014 taxes, because the federal government screwed up their forms in the first place. Now they have to scramble to finish their taxes by April 15th.

Good luck to the Obamacare victims.

]]>http://taxpolitix.com/incorrect-1095a-forms-are-finally-being-corrected/feed/0http://taxpolitix.com/incorrect-1095a-forms-are-finally-being-corrected/Obamacare Has Hit Only About 2/3 of CBO’s Initial Target for Enrollmenthttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Alanjoelny/~3/LvZhOW1B3io/
http://taxpolitix.com/obamacare-has-hit-only-about-23-of-cbos-initial-target-for-enrollment/#respondSat, 21 Mar 2015 11:14:14 +0000http://taxpolitix.com/?p=7310
Jeffery Anderson over at The Weekly Standard took a peek at Obamacare’s initial projected enrollment numbers and compared them to the current actual figures. What he found was that Obamacare is not as widely successful as the rosy Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates from 2010.

“Given that Obamacare’s supporters like to take the Congressional Budget Office’s overly optimistic scoring of the president’s signature legislation as gospel, it’s fun to look at how poorly Obamacare is actually doing in relation to earlier CBO projections. When the Democrats rammed Obamacare through Congress in 2010 without a single Republican vote, the CBO said that the unpopular overhaul would lead to a net increase of 26 million people with health insurance by 2015 (15 million through Medicaid plus 13 million through the Obamacare exchanges minus 2 million who would otherwise have had private insurance but wouldn’t because of Obamacare).

Fast-forwarding five years, the CBO now says that Obamacare’s tally for 2015 will actually be a net increase of just 17 million people (10 million through Medicaid plus 11 million through the Obamacare exchanges minus 4 million who would otherwise have had private insurance but won’t, or don’t, because of Obamacare).

In other words, Obamacare is now slated to hit only 65 percent of the CBO’s original coverage projection for 2015.

Obamacare’s under-publicized failure on this key point is attributable to a variety of factors, including but not limited to the following: People aren’t thrilled with Obamacare-compliant insurance’s high cost and limited doctor networks, and some would even rather pay a fine for refusing to buy such insurance than pay its premiums; the Supreme Court ruled that part of Obamacare was unconstitutional, thereby giving states more freedom not to help expand it; and HealthCare.gov has been more reminiscent of DMV.org than of Expedia.com.

In addition (and just as the CBO originally projected), the bulk of Obamacare’s net coverage gains are coming from dumping people into Medicaid (59 percent of the current projected net increase in 2015), not from getting people enrolled in private insurance (41 percent). Of course, President Obama rarely if ever talks about that aspect of Obamacare — but Republicans should.”

Desperate to get more people enrolled too, the Obama Administration announced last month another “special enrollment period” around tax time this year, to allow those who found out they have to pay a penalty/tax/fee instead of having insurance in 2014, the opportunity to not make the “mistake” again.

Those who opted not to have insurance in 2014 are fined $95, or 1% of their income, whichever is greater, which they pay when then file their 2014 taxes this year. In 2015, the fine increases to $325 or 2% of income. Enrollment in the special enrollment period has been lackluster so far.

The Administration just doesn’t seem to get that many people still don’t think Obamacare to be such a great piece of legislation, and certainly aren’t tripping over themselves to purchase an Obamacare plan.

]]>http://taxpolitix.com/obamacare-has-hit-only-about-23-of-cbos-initial-target-for-enrollment/feed/0http://taxpolitix.com/obamacare-has-hit-only-about-23-of-cbos-initial-target-for-enrollment/John McCain Nails Dick Durbin for Loretta Lynch Remarkshttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Alanjoelny/~3/4MmqKqzOfE8/
http://taxpolitix.com/john-mccain-nails-dick-durbin-for-loretta-lynch-remarks/#respondSat, 21 Mar 2015 02:09:01 +0000http://taxpolitix.com/?p=7304
I have writtenextensively about why Loretta Lynch should not become the next Attorney General of the United States. The vote has yet to be taken and is said to be very, very close — about 50 votes, allowing Joe Biden to cast a tie-breaker if necessary. That being said, Dick Durbin, the Senator from Illinois, blasted Republicans for not having held the confirmation vote yet, saying that Loretta Lynch has been sent to the “back of the bus”.

John McCain rose to the occasion yesterday in the Senate and called out Senator Durbin’s remarks, telling him, “such inflammatory rhetoric has no place in this body and serves no purpose other than to further divide us.” It was nice to see McCain stand firm and blast Durbin’s race-baiting histrionics (who, incidentally, did not support Condoleeza Rice for Secretary of State).

There are a myriad of reason not to support Loretta Lynch for Attorney General, but race is certainly not one of them. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous, infantile, and desperate. Take 5 minutes and watch McCain’s speech.

]]>http://taxpolitix.com/john-mccain-nails-dick-durbin-for-loretta-lynch-remarks/feed/0http://taxpolitix.com/john-mccain-nails-dick-durbin-for-loretta-lynch-remarks/More Economic Ignorance from Bill de Blasiohttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Alanjoelny/~3/pppoIB5O8kc/
http://taxpolitix.com/more-economic-ignorance-from-bill-de-blasio/#commentsWed, 18 Mar 2015 11:48:24 +0000http://taxpolitix.com/?p=7302
If NYC ever survives a mayor as economically ignorant as Bill de Blasio, it will be nothing short of a miracle. Not only has he been committed to “combating income inequality” by advocating raising taxes on the wealthy, now he also is pushing for a minimum wage hike to more than $13/hour as a means to bolster the economy.

De Blasio recently announced, “It’s time for New York City businesses to take bold action—not only because hardworking New Yorkers deserve a path to the middle class and an opportunity to stay in the middle class—but because giving them that opportunity would do so much to help our economy.”

His brilliant plan is to raise the wages past $13/hour in 2016, and then indexing it to inflation over the next 3 years so that the minimum wage will be $15/hour by 2019. The current wage is $8.75/hour, which will be $9.00 as of January 1, 2016. Where does de Blasio think that extra $4/hour is going to come from? He told the business owners that it’s time do “do your part”.

Unfortunately for the workers of NYC, they have a mayor who doesn’t understand that raising the minimum wage adversely affects those whom the wage hikes purport to help, especially the poorest in NYC. Less persons would be employed at $13/hour and $15/hour than if the minimum wage had not been hiked at all. Put it another way, many would see their hourly wages drop to $0/hour. That is not “opportunity”. That is unmitigated disaster.

]]>http://taxpolitix.com/more-economic-ignorance-from-bill-de-blasio/feed/1http://taxpolitix.com/more-economic-ignorance-from-bill-de-blasio/A Keystone Momenthttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Alanjoelny/~3/0mMgAKF1X-g/
http://taxpolitix.com/a-keystone-moment/#respondTue, 17 Mar 2015 10:22:12 +0000http://taxpolitix.com/?p=7299
In Obama’s Keystone recent veto message to Congress, our President cited the ongoing State Department review as the basis for his decision. He stated, “And because this act of Congress conflicts with established executive branch procedures and cuts short thorough consideration of issues that could bear on our national interest — including our security, safety, and environment — it has earned my veto.”

How incredibly obnoxious and incompetent is the President to say that after SIX years, the State Department has failed to complete its review. Nothing else at all needs to be said as to why the economy is still deplorable. The Keystone saga encapsulates the entire failure of the “shovel ready jobs” schtick, if it takes six years and counting for the federal government to make a decision on one pipeline project.

]]>http://taxpolitix.com/a-keystone-moment/feed/0http://taxpolitix.com/a-keystone-moment/An Open Letter to the Senate Regarding Loretta Lynchhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Alanjoelny/~3/Ukj3Sjhs_po/
http://taxpolitix.com/an-open-letter-to-the-senate-regarding-loretta-lynch/#commentsSun, 15 Mar 2015 10:09:48 +0000http://taxpolitix.com/?p=7296
The nomination of Loretta Lynch to the position of Attorney General is before you. Although her intelligence, experience, and poise may appear to make her a superb candidate, it is clear now that she would be an extremely poor – even dangerous — choice due to her strong position on civil asset forfeiture.

The need to safeguard civil liberties and individual rights is a priority for all Americans. Do you really want to consider confirming a person who has been exceedingly proud of her record of taking property without due process…of practicing guilty until proven innocent? This is a very serious issue, not to be taken lightly.

Civil asset forfeiture is a particularly egregious abuse of power, allowing the government to seize property and cash if it merely suspects wrongdoing, even with no evidence and no charging of a crime.

Loretta Lynch was particularly lucrative in this regard as the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York. Between 2011 and 2013, the forfeiture operations under her management netted more than $113 million in civil actions. Lynch’s division was among the top in the country for its collections. But this is not something to be proud of.

In one particularly appalling case, Loretta Lynch’s office seized nearly a half-million dollars from two businessman in 2012 and sat on it for more than two years without a court hearing or appearance before a judge. In fact, no crime had been committed. These men were denied due process and deprived of their assets without warning or criminal charges. Lynch suddenly returned the money just weeks ago on January 20, 2015 — on the eve of her confirmation hearings, having found no wrongdoing by the men either.

During Lynch’s confirmation hearing testimony pertaining to civil asset forfeiture, Lynch stated that “civil and criminal forfeiture are very important tools of the Department of Justice as well as our state and local counterparts.” She further argued that forfeiture is “ done pursuant to court order, and I believe the protections are there.” This is, in fact, not true. In the case mentioned above, there was not only no court order, but also no hearing at any time in nearly three years. That is unconscionable. And this is only one of many similar, well-documented, incidents.

The problem of civil asset forfeiture is that the government can confiscate money or property under the mere suspicion of a crime without ever actually charging someone. The person must prove his innocence to reclaim what was seized, which is a burden of time and money and readily seems to go against our staunch American belief of “innocent until proven guilty.” What’s more, besides the obvious threat to civil liberties, those most likely to be victims are poor and minority citizens.

Thankfully, in recent months, individuals and organizations on both sides of the political aisle have come together to demand reform to this unjust practice. Bipartisan legislation has been proposed in Congress; groups ranging from the Heritage Foundation to the American Civil Liberties Union have been increasingly critical of civil asset forfeiture practices. Even Eric Holder has called for changes and the IRS has recently and publicly pledged to reduce its involvement as well.

Loretta Lynch and her record on civil asset forfeiture represents the worst of this “tool for law enforcement”. A vote for her confirmation is a vote you will never be able to walk back. Do you really want to confirm a person who is so deeply committed to civil asset forfeiture at the very same time in America that there is strong bipartisan support for protecting civil liberties and walking back the laws pertaining to this practice? It makes no sense to proceed down this path.

Loretta Lynch may arguably be the most successful forfeiture agent in government today. This is not a positive quality for an Attorney General. The practice is abusive and her tactics even more so. Voting to confirm a person with such an atrocious civil liberties record is certain to cause problems for you down the road when you have to answer for your support. Therefore, on behalf of all Americans, I urge you to vote no for her confirmation.

]]>http://taxpolitix.com/an-open-letter-to-the-senate-regarding-loretta-lynch/feed/2http://taxpolitix.com/an-open-letter-to-the-senate-regarding-loretta-lynch/WSJ Begins a Satire Section — Or Does It?http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Alanjoelny/~3/_YeGD1NzdSY/
http://taxpolitix.com/wsj-begins-a-satire-section-or-does-it/#respondFri, 13 Mar 2015 20:05:31 +0000http://taxpolitix.com/?p=7288As I read this recent article in the Wall Street Journal, “Sluggish Productivity Hampers Wage Gains” I mulled as to whether or not the Wall Street Journal had started a new satire section — but then it occurred to me that the author’s analysis of the current market was completely serious. Is he so clueless that he actually does not understand why there is “tepid productivity”?

The author, Greg Ip, cites 1) Faulty data may be partly to blame, 2) the severity of the financial crisis and recession and 3) weak business investment, but completely misses the elephant in the room: the meddling, anti-business policies of the current administration.

This administration has been exceedingly heavy-handed in its efforts to demonize businesses, while promising that businesses will be highly taxed and regulated. Whether it is labor regulation by the NRLB or environmental regulation by the EPA, government interference has been overreaching and restrictive.

Additionally, there have been huge increases in both criminal rules and regulations about what businesses are allowed and not allowed to do — from nitpicky labor rules, to dictating employee minutiae, to minimum wage requirements, all which restrict business hiring.

More unfortunately, Obama has provided the background for a litigation-friendly environment. If a larger, more financially stable company wants to steal something from a smaller company, they can sue them or just threaten with a costly legal battle. Likewise, “disparate impact” and IRS asset forfeiture are two practices which demonize business owners by merely suggesting wrongdoing — and put the burden of the business owners to prove their innocence.

And recently, the Obama Administration has decided to wage war on business inversions, by declaring companies who wish to move their headquarters abroad in order to stay competitive, to be “unpatriotic”, and “tax dodgers”, calling the perfectly legal process of inversion to be a “loophole”. Couple that with the fact that we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world and it’s no wonder that businesses struggle to survive.

Usually the Wall Street Journal is fairly en pointe. It’s hard to believe any editor would have let this article be published while utterly ignoring Obama’s detrimental business policies that have plagued the economy over the last 6 years — which is why something needed to be said.

]]>http://taxpolitix.com/wsj-begins-a-satire-section-or-does-it/feed/0http://taxpolitix.com/wsj-begins-a-satire-section-or-does-it/Hillary Clinton Wrote More Personal Emails Than Official Ones, Averaging 31 a Dayhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Alanjoelny/~3/JgxF1uitPUg/
http://taxpolitix.com/hillary-clinton-wrote-more-personal-than-official-emails-averaging-30-a-day/#respondWed, 11 Mar 2015 22:46:46 +0000http://taxpolitix.com/?p=7290According to the LA Times, Hillary Clinton has revealed that aides “deleted more than 30,000 emails that she deemed personal.”

In fact, Clinton herself breaks down the email numbers: there were 62,320 total messages. 30,490 of these were provided to the State Department, and 31,830 were private records that were destroyed.

That’s right, she wrote more personal emails than professional ones during her tenure as Secretary of State.

Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State from March 2009 to February 2013. That’s four years minus one month. 4 years is 1460 days, plus minus 30 days, totaling 1430 days as Secretary of State. If she sent 31,830 private mails, that averages roughly 22.2 personal emails each day, 365 days a year, the entire time she was Secretary of State.

Does your employer tolerate that many personal emails a day?

It’s even worse if you don’t factor in weekends and federal holidays, just strict federal government working hours. The government calculates that federal employees work 2,087 hours a year. For Clinton’s term as Secretary of state, 2087 hours x 4 years is 8348 hours. Subtract a month (174 hours) and you get 8174 hours.

If she was able to delete 31,830 personal emails over her term, she sent 3.89 personal emails an hour, or one about every 15 minutes, racking up 31 personal emails over an 8 hour work day. On taxpayer money. On taxpayer time. Hillary Clinton was paid $186,600 a year as Secretary of State.